Kentucky ark proves god hates America...

[Hawkeye10]

THey are agreeing to have their employees pay a special tax just on them for the next 30 years of 2% OF GROSS to help pay the bills... if they are willing to do that you just know they are going to attempt to pick the pockets of their customers.

I am not getting near the place.

 

[Fishking]

So...its OK to spend taxpayer dollars on a religious fantasy....just as long as its the religious fantasy you believe.

Hypocrisy much?

It's OK. No tax dollars were spent on it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It's OK. No tax dollars were spent on it.

They bought the land from the government for $1
Their lawyers got $200,000
$11 milion is to be spent on an I-75 interchange for them(if this actually works, which I doubt)
The taxpayers are going to have to pay to either run this thing or dispose of it after it fails commercially like the CHUNNEL, probably both.
If this thing works the local village is going to have to be built up, because employees are not going to drive a 2+ hour round trip(1.5 hours on a good day, which are already in short supply before this beast opens) for a min wage job that special taxes them 3% of net....that costs BIG bucks.

 

[Crovax]

No way should taxpayers be subsidizing this!

(and a subsidy is exactly what a tax break is)

Wrong

money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function

Subsidy | Definition of Subsidy by Merriam-Webster

The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy - Reason.com

Repeat after me: Tax breaks and subsidies are not the same thing – Rare

 

[Crovax]

If they filed as a legit church, then fair enough.

But this seems to be a different enterprise.

And why should even legit churches skip out on taxes?

Taxing a church would create a situation where the federal govt is regulating the church, a dangerous precedent and an undue hardship on the freedom of religion. Not to mention the words of the SCOTUS "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy" That is not a power the govt is allowed to have over religion.

 

[Hawkeye10]

If they filed as a legit church, then fair enough.

But this seems to be a different enterprise.

And why should even legit churches skip out on taxes?

This is a for profit corporation run by a non profit who said in their municipal junk bond prospectus that there very well might never be any profits (cant remember the terminology used)

 

[blarg]

i can get over the tax break in fact i would approve of government money bieng spent to disassemble the thing and put it back together on the coast where it could then be towed out to sea to show the world how well the arc worcks maybe they could throw in some cash to stock it with some animals and feed

that will show those non believers how worthwhile this blessed museum is

 

[Hawkeye10]

i can get over the tax break in fact i would approve of government money bieng spent to disassemble the thing and put it back together on the coast where it could then be towed out to sea to show the world how well the arc worcks maybe they could throw in some cash to stock it with some animals and feed

that will show those non believers how worthwhile this blessed museum is

It would be oh so helpful if this beast was designed to be disassembled and transported.

Surely we could then sell it to the Mexicans.

Seriously.

 

[D_NATURED]

So? Will it bring revenues into the area? That's the only thing that matters when regarding these types of things. People seem to lose their minds and conflate all kinds of things if something involves religion.

Obviously, the only piece of paper that matters to you is the dollar. I think the constitution has value too. It is ignorance to believe that the former piece of paper has any value when you crap on the latter.

 

[Moon]

The bigotry and hyperventilating going on in this thread is just epic. Keep up the good work!

 

[AFM]

Does the ark float???

 

[CMPancake]

Let's go shut down every mosque, church, and synagogue while we are at it. We all know what they teach.......right? I would hate to see a secular child get caught up in all their dastardly teachings.

Mosques, churches, and synagogues are normally not given millions of dollars to build a theme park with the goal of warping reality and science to their

Then don't go to it. Problem solved.

I don't go to Marlin's stadium, but that doesn't change the fact that my tax dollars are going to go to paying for that stadium for the next 10+ years. What part of that are you not understanding?

It's their own money that's being handled.

Demonstrably false, the group building this theme park, Answers in Genesis was given 60+ million dollars in municipal bonds from Kentucky to build this theme park. Huckster Ken Hamm managed to get away with having the state fund more than half of his gawdy theme park that preaches a laughably false worldview. The state might as well have given >$50 million dollars to Vermin Supreme to prepare the state for the Zombie Apocalypse

So you don't have to worry your pretty little head over it.

How ****ing condescending of you.

 

[Fishking]

They bought the land from the government for $1
Their lawyers got $200,000
$11 milion is to be spent on an I-75 interchange for them(if this actually works, which I doubt)
The taxpayers are going to have to pay to either run this thing or dispose of it after it fails commercially like the CHUNNEL, probably both.
If this thing works the local village is going to have to be built up, because employees are not going to drive a 2+ hour round trip(1.5 hours on a good day, which are already in short supply before this beast opens) for a min wage job that special taxes them 3% of net....that costs BIG bucks.

So a town getting built up, creating new jobs is a bad thing now?

 

[Fishking]

Obviously, the only piece of paper that matters to you is the dollar. I think the constitution has value too. It is ignorance to believe that the former piece of paper has any value when you crap on the latter.

The Constitution matters to me as well. This isn't a church, it's a for-profit business.

 

[Fishking]

I don't go to Marlin's stadium, but that doesn't change the fact that my tax dollars are going to go to paying for that stadium for the next 10+ years. What part of that are you not understanding?

I'm not misunderstanding anything. These dynamics exist, all over the place, in the business world. If you are going to be consistent then you should be as outraged over any government subsidizing of any business. That's the boat I'm in. I don't think the government should be doing any of this stuff but, since it's wholesale policy right now, I'm not going to get worked up over one little incident.

Demonstrably false, the group building this theme park, Answers in Genesis was given 60+ million dollars in municipal bonds from Kentucky to build this theme park. Huckster Ken Hamm managed to get away with having the state fund more than half of his gawdy theme park that preaches a laughably false worldview. The state might as well have given >$50 million dollars to Vermin Supreme to prepare the state for the Zombie Apocalypse

You're correct. I missed the bond part in my initial reading. The question is, are bonds a normal thing used for government to subsidize a business? As far as the state funding a Vermin Supreme zombie apocalypse thing...sure. I don't see the problem with that either.

This is not a 501(c) church, ya'll. It's a for profit theme park.

How ****ing condescending of you.

Condescension is a pretty tame response to blatant bigotry.

 

[Chomsky]

I appreciate your efforts, but:

Wrong



Subsidy | Definition of Subsidy by Merriam-Webster

Attempting to apply a strict narrow definition to a general context scenario will not win the argument, nor change the reality of what is occurring here.

The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy - Reason.com

Repeat after me: Tax breaks and subsidies are not the same thing – Rare

These links above are to opinion pieces, and as opinion carry no more weight than your's or mine.

Rather than attempt to trap with narrow definitions, can you not see these entities are using the taxpayer's funds to subsidize their viability? The article claims and is essentially about the lack of economic viability of this private religious project without taxpayer assistance.

Whether the taxpayer monies are provided up front, or rebated in the back, it's the same net result. You seem to be clinging to technicalities to carry the day through.

Taxing a church would create a situation where the federal govt is regulating the church, a dangerous precedent and an undue hardship on the freedom of religion. Not to mention the words of the SCOTUS "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy" That is not a power the govt is allowed to have over religion.

Actually now, this is an interesting argument.

Not knowing the specific case law, I'm not going to debate it, nor do I desire to research it.

But I will say I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

One point that has not been brought up is that one of the major ways we taxpayers pay when the elite are handing out candy is by manipulation of the tax code. Here we have $60ish million in junk MUNICIPAL bonds, to support a religious exercise that is advertised as being a for profit enterprise, where it is unlikely there will ever be profits. THis is above my paygrade but I gotta expect that the bond holders are religious donors who are using the tax code to get huge tax write offs that they would not be able to record by simply giving a donation......which is what buying these bonds will amount too in reality.

"TAXPAYERS will NOT pay for this" looks like a flimsy deception to me.

 

[Crovax]

I appreciate your efforts, but:

Attempting to apply a strict narrow definition to a general context scenario will not win the argument, nor change the reality of what is occurring here.

These links above are to opinion pieces, and as opinion carry no more weight than your's or mine.

Rather than attempt to trap with narrow definitions, can you not see these entities are using the taxpayer's funds to subsidize their viability? The article claims and is essentially about the lack of economic viability of this private religious project without taxpayer assistance.

Whether the taxpayer monies are provided up front, or rebated in the back, it's the same net result. You seem to be clinging to technicalities to carry the day through.

No it's not. If a company is given a 500 million dollars never produces anything and goes bankrupt the money is gone. If a company is given a 500 million dollar tax break never produces anything and goes bankrupt then no money is lost.

Actually now, this is an interesting argument.

Not knowing the specific case law, I'm not going to debate it, nor do I desire to research it.

But I will say I don't necessarily agree with it.

Well I don't see how we can debate whether churchs should be taxed without looking at the constitutional implications

 

[CMPancake]

I'm not misunderstanding anything. These dynamics exist, all over the place, in the business world.

That's well and fine, but whether the fact that this tax breaks happen or not doesn't change on if it should happen in the first place. Especially for a non-profit group that has attempted several times to shoehorn a falsehood in scientific literature.

If you are going to be consistent then you should be as outraged over any government subsidizing of any business.

If you were to read my posts, you would see I am very critical over a similar case where the city of Miami is going to be paying more than a billion dollars for a park no one attends in the first place. My outrage is very consistent.

That's the boat I'm in. I don't think the government should be doing any of this stuff but, since it's wholesale policy right now, I'm not going to get worked up over one little incident.

Of course you're not going to get worked up over this because from what I can deduce you support Ken Hamm and his rather warped view on science. (If that isn't the case, please feel free to correct me.)

You're correct. I missed the bond part in my initial reading. The question is, are bonds a normal thing used for government to subsidize a business?

Yes and unfortunately so. But this is the first time I've heard of this for something so blatantly religious getting this much money from the state.

As far as the state funding a Vermin Supreme zombie apocalypse thing...sure. I don't see the problem with that either.

Glad to see you're on board for the Government wasting money.

This is not a 501(c) church, ya'll. It's a for profit theme park.

It's a for profit theme park being ran by a non-profit group. Do you not find it a bit absurd a non-profit could get $62 million in bonds, on top of a $18 million dollar rebate from Kentucky? The state is getting robbed and you're just shrugging and going "well other companies do it, so it's okay."

Condescension is a pretty tame response to blatant bigotry.

Did you seriously just ****ing throw the bigot card at me? What have I made a bigoted statement against? Christians? Nope, I've only mocked Ken Ham and Creationism. White people? Nope, haven't mentioned race once? All I have done is targeted Answers in Genesis for flat out stealing millions of dollars from a state too dumb to realize the Earth could not possibly be only 6,000 years old.

But that's beside the point, I enjoy how defensive I'm making you at this point. You're clearly back peddling and had to throw out the "bigotry" card.

 

[D_NATURED]

The Constitution matters to me as well. This isn't a church, it's a for-profit business.

It's an establishment of religion...period.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

So a town getting built up, creating new jobs is a bad thing now?

Yes, if it involves the promotion of religous evangelism with gov't assistance.

What a stupid question.

 

[Fishking]

Yes, if it involves the promotion of religous evangelism with gov't assistance.

What a stupid question.

It's not a non-prof. It's a for-profit amusement park.

 

[Fishking]

It's an establishment of religion...period.

It's not a church.

 

[Chomsky]

No it's not. If a company is given a 500 million dollars never produces anything and goes bankrupt the money is gone. If a company is given a 500 million dollar tax break never produces anything and goes bankrupt then no money is lost.



Well I don't see how we can debate whether churchs should be taxed without looking at the constitutional implications

To the bolded: Consider it 'au gratis'.

(I'm giving it to you - I figure it's got to be Constitutionally tested by now).

 

[Tanngrisnir]

It's not a non-prof. It's a for-profit amusement park.

Yes, and that' irrelevant to what I stated.